Comments on: Are you still using Microsoft CMS 2002? http://jboye.com/blogpost/are-you-still-using-microsoft-cms-2002/ The international community for web and intranet professionals Mon, 30 Jan 2012 19:45:30 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.2 By: » The real definition of a “key account” - J. Boye » Blog http://jboye.com/blogpost/are-you-still-using-microsoft-cms-2002/comment-page-1/#comment-2870 » The real definition of a “key account” - J. Boye » Blog Thu, 10 Sep 2009 07:00:16 +0000 http://www.jboye.com/?p=864#comment-2870 [...] good example is how Microsoft have treated their CMS customers in the past. The early adopters were left behind with Microsoft CMS 2002 without an upgrade option when Microsoft released SharePoint 2007. Large organisations, such as [...] [...] good example is how Microsoft have treated their CMS customers in the past. The early adopters were left behind with Microsoft CMS 2002 without an upgrade option when Microsoft released SharePoint 2007. Large organisations, such as [...]

]]> By: J. Boye » Blog Archive » Overlooked SharePoint success factors http://jboye.com/blogpost/are-you-still-using-microsoft-cms-2002/comment-page-1/#comment-1649 J. Boye » Blog Archive » Overlooked SharePoint success factors Wed, 10 Jun 2009 10:58:14 +0000 http://www.jboye.com/?p=864#comment-1649 [...] and their IT departments have been struggling to keep up with service packs and some are still using Microsoft CMS 2002 and SharePoint 2003. Any SharePoint upgrade will still be a major exercise and you should plan [...] [...] and their IT departments have been struggling to keep up with service packs and some are still using Microsoft CMS 2002 and SharePoint 2003. Any SharePoint upgrade will still be a major exercise and you should plan [...]

]]> By: J. Boye » Blog Archive » HyperContent: A dead open source CMS? http://jboye.com/blogpost/are-you-still-using-microsoft-cms-2002/comment-page-1/#comment-1506 J. Boye » Blog Archive » HyperContent: A dead open source CMS? Mon, 01 Jun 2009 21:24:46 +0000 http://www.jboye.com/?p=864#comment-1506 [...] CMS which in 2006 was replaced by SharePoint. Even today Microsoft CMS is still in use. To be fair, Microsoft continues to provide support and security fixes for a limited [...] [...] CMS which in 2006 was replaced by SharePoint. Even today Microsoft CMS is still in use. To be fair, Microsoft continues to provide support and security fixes for a limited [...]

]]> By: Shawn Shell http://jboye.com/blogpost/are-you-still-using-microsoft-cms-2002/comment-page-1/#comment-312 Shawn Shell Tue, 24 Feb 2009 11:29:57 +0000 http://www.jboye.com/?p=864#comment-312 We just released a program to help clients migrate from MCMS 2002 to SharePoint. In addition, we can migrate them another WCM of their choice as well. Details can be found on our web site: http://www.consejoinc.com/solutions/Microsoft_CMS_Upgrade.aspx That aside, to facilitate any migration from MCMS, I would offer a few suggestions: 1) Make sure to document the site. This includes all of the customizations within MCMS (since that was pretty common), in addition to templates, resources (both internal and shared in the galleries), navigation logic and so on. Whether or not the newly migrated web site is an exact replica or not, having good documentation will just make any migration project smoother. 2) If the site supports multi-lingual content, a SharePoint upgrade may not be straight forward. Since MCMS had no formalized approach to localized content, clients were free to handling that content as they chose. With SharePoint, the process and architecture is very structured and may not support the approach chosen by the existing site on MCMS. This is actually true of other tools like RedDot as well. Be sure to clearly understand your needs with regard to localized content and the process to contribute that content to the site. 3) If the site will continue to run on Microsoft technology, migrations from MCMS 2002 will be easier if clients take the time to reduce the number of templates used AND if those templates are well-structured into components (e.g. user controls, server controls and well-organized HTML). This is work that won't be wasted, since any controls that don't specifically leverage MCMS functionality can be reused with the new WCM tool. Plus, reducing the number of templates will reduce the time to migrate to the new WCM technology. 4) Find a way to extract all of the content in a generic format (like XML) to enable a content archive (for historically reference), potentially automating content import to the new WCM tool and to ensure no content is missed in the migration. We developed a utility that extracts all of the content from MCMS; we use this utility in our engagements with clients, but also sell it as a stand alone product. Our utility is a pretty simple extraction tool, but more robust solutions can also be licensed from Metalogix and others. What ever you choose, find a way to extract the content from the MCMS repository prior to the migration. We just released a program to help clients migrate from MCMS 2002 to SharePoint. In addition, we can migrate them another WCM of their choice as well. Details can be found on our web site: http://www.consejoinc.com/solutions/Microsoft_CMS_Upgrade.aspx

That aside, to facilitate any migration from MCMS, I would offer a few suggestions:

1) Make sure to document the site. This includes all of the customizations within MCMS (since that was pretty common), in addition to templates, resources (both internal and shared in the galleries), navigation logic and so on. Whether or not the newly migrated web site is an exact replica or not, having good documentation will just make any migration project smoother.

2) If the site supports multi-lingual content, a SharePoint upgrade may not be straight forward. Since MCMS had no formalized approach to localized content, clients were free to handling that content as they chose. With SharePoint, the process and architecture is very structured and may not support the approach chosen by the existing site on MCMS. This is actually true of other tools like RedDot as well. Be sure to clearly understand your needs with regard to localized content and the process to contribute that content to the site.

3) If the site will continue to run on Microsoft technology, migrations from MCMS 2002 will be easier if clients take the time to reduce the number of templates used AND if those templates are well-structured into components (e.g. user controls, server controls and well-organized HTML). This is work that won’t be wasted, since any controls that don’t specifically leverage MCMS functionality can be reused with the new WCM tool. Plus, reducing the number of templates will reduce the time to migrate to the new WCM technology.

4) Find a way to extract all of the content in a generic format (like XML) to enable a content archive (for historically reference), potentially automating content import to the new WCM tool and to ensure no content is missed in the migration. We developed a utility that extracts all of the content from MCMS; we use this utility in our engagements with clients, but also sell it as a stand alone product. Our utility is a pretty simple extraction tool, but more robust solutions can also be licensed from Metalogix and others. What ever you choose, find a way to extract the content from the MCMS repository prior to the migration.

]]> By: J. Boye » Blog Archive » The Danish Prime Minister’s Office now uses Datagraf CMS http://jboye.com/blogpost/are-you-still-using-microsoft-cms-2002/comment-page-1/#comment-288 J. Boye » Blog Archive » The Danish Prime Minister’s Office now uses Datagraf CMS Tue, 17 Feb 2009 22:04:44 +0000 http://www.jboye.com/?p=864#comment-288 [...] no longer support their content management system. An example of this in the recent past is the popular but discontinued Microsoft CMS 2002. To reduce risk, I advise you to look closely at both product features for your prospective CMS and [...] [...] no longer support their content management system. An example of this in the recent past is the popular but discontinued Microsoft CMS 2002. To reduce risk, I advise you to look closely at both product features for your prospective CMS and [...]

]]> By: J. Boye » Blog Archive » Google: A safe choice for the enterprise? http://jboye.com/blogpost/are-you-still-using-microsoft-cms-2002/comment-page-1/#comment-205 J. Boye » Blog Archive » Google: A safe choice for the enterprise? Thu, 29 Jan 2009 15:13:50 +0000 http://www.jboye.com/?p=864#comment-205 [...] for buyers. Big vendors kill products all the time, just like Microsoft did a few years ago with Microsoft CMS 2002 which is still used around the world, but no longer [...] [...] for buyers. Big vendors kill products all the time, just like Microsoft did a few years ago with Microsoft CMS 2002 which is still used around the world, but no longer [...]

]]> By: Lisa Garcia http://jboye.com/blogpost/are-you-still-using-microsoft-cms-2002/comment-page-1/#comment-168 Lisa Garcia Mon, 19 Jan 2009 13:09:21 +0000 http://www.jboye.com/?p=864#comment-168 Yes, we are still using Microsoft CMS 2002. Having a lot of problems with it, though. Planning to upgrade do Sharepoint 2007, but in the process of researching, I'm still not totally convinced that this would be our best option, since we do need powerful search capabilities (we're a government portal with over 80 government services/departments each with its own channel on the portal). Would love to hear from all of you out there still using CMS 2002 or with any views on this, as I myself am not technical, although I am involved in the decision-making process. Yes, we are still using Microsoft CMS 2002. Having a lot of problems with it, though. Planning to upgrade do Sharepoint 2007, but in the process of researching, I’m still not totally convinced that this would be our best option, since we do need powerful search capabilities (we’re a government portal with over 80 government services/departments each with its own channel on the portal). Would love to hear from all of you out there still using CMS 2002 or with any views on this, as I myself am not technical, although I am involved in the decision-making process.

]]>